Van Coller v Mhlambo NO and Others (JR625/15; JS231/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 379 (4 October 2016)

Van Coller v Mhlambo NO and Others (JR625/15; JS231/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 379 (4 October 2016)

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's review application due to the absence of a condonation application for its late filing. The applicant failed to address this jurisdictional defect in his grounds for appeal, focusing instead on the substantive merits of his employment claim, which were irrelevant without condonation. The costs order was varied to correct a patent error, but the applicant's persistence in pursuing the review application without following proper procedure justified the award of costs against him. There was no reasonable prospect of success for the appeal, either on the merits or on costs.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 379
Parties
Applicant: DR A VAN COLLER; Respondent: COMMISSIONER Z MHLAMBO N.O; Respondent: DR G C FERREIRA & PARTNERS T/A WESMED (PTY) LTD; Respondent: DR G C FERREIRA; Respondent: DR RIAAN VAN JAARSVELD; Respondent: DR PASCAL GILLES; Respondent: MRS JUANITA VAN TONDER
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2016
Case Number
JR625/15; JS231/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs. Costs order varied to correct patent error.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Condonation, Jurisdiction, Costs Award, Leave to Appeal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Jurisdiction Costs Award Leave to Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DR A VAN COLLER

Applicant

COMMISSIONER Z MHLAMBO N.O

Respondent

DR G C FERREIRA & PARTNERS T/A WESMED (PTY) LTD

Respondent

DR G C FERREIRA

Respondent

DR RIAAN VAN JAARSVELD

Respondent

DR PASCAL GILLES

Respondent

MRS JUANITA VAN TONDER

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's late review application could be entertained without condonation.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in the absence of jurisdiction.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order required correction due to a patent error.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's review application due to the absence of a condonation application for its late filing. The applicant failed to address this jurisdictional defect in his grounds for appeal, focusing instead on the substantive merits of his employment claim, which were irrelevant without condonation. The costs order was varied to correct a patent error, but the applicant's persistence in pursuing the review application without following proper procedure justified the award of costs against him. There was no reasonable prospect of success for the appeal, either on the merits or on costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs. Costs order varied to correct patent error.

Orders

  • Paragraph 2 of the order of the court in case number JR 652-15 handed down on 12 May 2016 pertaining to the award of costs is varied by the deletion of the words '2nd to 6th respondent' and their replacement with the words '2nd, 3rd and 6th respondents'.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.